No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This article empirically analyzes how victims’ remains were recovered, identified, repatriated, and retained after the World Trade Center (WTC) terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It does so by asking the question whose body is it. This question brings to the fore issues related to personhood and ownership: how are anonymous and unrecognizable bodily remains given back an identity; and who has ownership of or custody over identified and unidentified human remains? It is in this respect that the article engages with technoscientific and legal, or “technolegal,” trajectories of human remains in the wake of the WTC tragedy. By using the metaphor of “materialization,” it becomes possible to trace how remains are forensically identified and implicated in legal regimes. “Technolegal materialization” as a concept and methodological sensitivity contributes to the current “actor-network theory” (ANT)-inspired legal scholarship, which tends to focus on legal practices in courtrooms but not those beyond them. In this article, 9/11 victims’ remains are followed from “Ground Zero” to the forensic laboratory and beyond and articulates five instances of technolegal materialization of bodily remains and their past and contemporary existences.

The automatic exchange and comparison of DNA data between national databases to combat terrorism and crossborder crime in the EU area has been facilitated by the 2008 Prüm Decisions. While it was anticipated that all EU Member States would have fulfilled the requirements by August 2011, this has not yet occurred. Once each Member State has implemented the Prüm Decisions, which is expected to occur by spring or summer 2019, the EU Commission is planning on submitting a legislative proposal to amend the Prüm Decisions, possibly broadening its scope both in terms of types of data exchanged and the number of countries involved. Therefore, it is a timely place to review the available literature on the existing data on the cross-border exchange and comparison of DNA. However, due to the limited amount of available data regarding the Prüm regime's contribution to combating crime and terrorism, this article reviews national DNA databases' contribution to national criminal justice systems before it turns to the Prüm regime. Outlining how Prüm represents an "aspirational regime" focused on a secure and safe future, we draft recommendations directed towards rendering cross-border exchange of DNA data more transparent and accountable.